Wednesday, December 1, 2010

El Clásico!

What a match - One that will go down in history between bitter rivals FC Barcelona and Real Madrid. Barcelona's brilliant performance on Monday was absolutely mesmerizing, to the point that I literally had my jaw dropped by the 90th+ minute. Vamanos Blaugranas! 5-0 in favour of Barca.

Not only is the result so astonishing, but the fact that Real Madrid's perfect winning streak during la liga was finally broken, and Barcelona took over the leader-board as headed by Barca's great coach, Pep Guardiola. In my opinion, Guardiola has done so much in his young career, he has the potential to be the greatest coach Barca has ever had. Much better than Real Madrid's Jose Mourinho.

However, as always, there was some great controversy to be handled during the match in Camp Nou. First of all, when Cristiano Ronaldo (aka; the greatest poser to have ever lived, over hyped, and one who has no respect for the beautiful game) had the audacity to push Pep Guradiola, in order to get the ball for a throw in. Second of all, when Sergio Ramos deliberately tackled Lionel Messi, and later on continued to shove fellow national team mate captain Carles Puyol in the face to finally get a red card. (Not to mention he got a red card from his previous match along with Xabi Alonso). All I can say is that Real Madrid played a very dirty game, while Barcelona's performance was simply breathtaking (Over 600 passes made!).

.. Yes, this is biased. So what?

Here are some of the highlights of the game (I recommend for any avid fan to watch the entire match):



Barça, Barça, Barça !

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Life as I know it

In honor of my grandfather, whom I've learnt everything from.
“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” – Albert Einstein
“The best years of your life are the ones in which you decide your problems are your own. You do not blame them on your mother, the ecology, or the president. You realize that you control your own destiny.” – Albert Ellis
“The trouble with not having a goal is that you can spend your life running up and down the field and never score.” – Bill Copeland
“If what you’re doing is not your passion, you have nothing to lose.”
“The person who says something is impossible should not interrupt the person who is doing it.”
“It is never too late to be what you might have been.” – George Eliot
“All our dreams can come true – if we have the courage to pursue them.” – Walt Disney
“What the mind can conceive, it can achieve.” – Napoleon Hill
“It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that things are difficult.” – Seneca
“Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.” - Eleanor Roosevelt
“If opportunity doesn’t knock, build a door.” - Milton Berle
“The sky has never been the limit. We are our own limits. It’s then about breaking our personal limits and outgrowing ourselves to live our best lives.”
“Don’t say you don’t have enough time. You have exactly the same number of hours per day that were given to Helen Keller, Pasteur, Michaelangelo, Mother Teresea, Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, and Albert Einstein.” – Life’s Little Instruction Book, compiled by H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.” – Mahatma Gandhi
“When you can’t change the direction of the wind — adjust your sails.” ~ H. Jackson Brown
“Everything you want should be yours: the type of work you want; the relationships you need; the social, mental, and aesthetic stimulation that will make you happy and fulfilled; the money you require for the lifestyle that is appropriate to you; and any requirement that you may (or may not) have for achievement or service to others. If you don’t aim for it all, you’ll never get it all. To aim for it requires that you know what you want” ~ Richard Koch
“Confidence comes not from always being right but not fearing to be wrong”
“Your time is limited, don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma, which is living the result of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of other’s opinion drowned your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition, they somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.” – Steve Jobs

Monday, September 6, 2010

Hawking on God again - "The Grand Design"

I woke up this morning to the news that, according to Stephen Hawking, God did not create the Universe but it was instead an “inevitable consequence of the Law of Physics”. By sheer coincidence this daft pronouncement has come out at the same time as the publication of Professor Hawking’s new book, an extract of which appears in todays Times.

Before I express my viewpoints, I'd like to establish that I do not believe in God, and yes, that means i'm an atheist. Therefore, my remarks might seem biased, but that's what keeps the debate on religion vs science going. I'm sure I will have several more posts on this topic in the future.

Stephen Hawking is undoubtedly a very brilliant theoretical physicist, though I wouldn't rank him in my top 20 all time physicists. However, something I’ve noticed about theoretical physicists over the years is that if you get them talking on subjects outside physics they are generally likely to say things just as daft as some drunk bloke down the pub. I’m afraid this is a case in point. And it's quite saddening to think that numerous fans follow every one of his remarks - no matter how religulous they may be.

God and physics are in my view pretty much orthogonal. To put it another way, if I were religious, there’s nothing in theoretical physics that would change make me want to change my mind. However, I’ll leave it to those many physicists who are learned in matters of theology to take up the (metaphorical) cudgels with Professor Hawking.

Though I haven't read the book yet, i'm sure it will be the usual nonsense some people put just to get media attention for a while to fund their studies. No offense to Professor Hawking, whom I respect very much.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Everything is Emergent ... Really?

It’s funny how when one thing is going good, it’s going great. And no one portrays that better than Erik Verlinde, who has made a claim that the reason why physicists do not understand the fundamentals of gravity is due to the fact that gravity is an emergent phenomenon, or an “entropic force”. As usual, the media gets all hyped, and so his claim ends up in the New York Times.

Now, if there is one model in physics that I am truly not very fond of, it would be the Standard Model. However, Verlinde has took his claim one step further with the help of Peter Freund, to claim that the Standard Model is also an emergent phenomenon. In fact, Freund has a new paper out on the arXiv entitled “Emergent Gauge Fields” with the following abstract:
Erik Verlinde’s proposal of the emergence of the gravitational force as an entropic force is extended to abelian and non-abelian gauge fields and to matter fields. This suggests a picture with no fundamental forces or forms of matter whatsoever.
And the appreciation:
I wish to thank Erik Verlinde for very helpful correspondence from which it is clear that he independently has also arrived at the conclusion that not only gravity, but all gauge fields should be emergent.
Geoffrey Chew's failed "bootstrap program" of the sixties - much the same reminiscing theoretical idea:
It is as if assuming certain forces and forms of matter to be fundamental is tantamount (in the sense of an effective theory) to assuming that there are no fundamental forces or forms of matter whatsoever, and everything is emergent. This latter picture in which nothing is fundamental is reminiscent of Chew’s bootstrap approach, the original breeding ground of string theory. Could it be that after all its mathematically and physically exquisite developments, string theory has returned to its birthplace?
It is still puzzling to me as to why this is a good thing. During David Gross' (a former student of Chew's) Nobel prize lecture, he explains:
I can remember the precise moment at which I was disillusioned with the bootstrap program. This was at the 1966 Rochester meeting, held at Berkeley. Francis Low, in the session following his talk, remarked that the bootstrap was less of a theory than a tautology…

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

God's Number is 20

As many of my friends know, I am a competitive speedcuber (one can search up my WCA profile).

I love solving puzzles, and more importantly, I love the mathematics behind it. For some time now in the cubing world there has been some progress made into solving an algorithm which produces a solution having the least possible number of moves, the idea being that an omniscient being would know an optimal step from any given configuration. This is known as God's algorithm. The number of moves this algorithm would take in the worst case is called God's Number.

Recently
Morley Davidson, John Dethridge (also a TopCoder), Herbert Kociemba, and Tomas Rokicki proved that God's Number for the standard 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube is exactly 20.

Why is this a great leap forward for cubers? Simply put, imagine constructing an algorithm to optimally
solve all 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 positions of the cube. Easy, no? It took 3 decades to get to this stage ..

Here's the
article for further reading.

Monday, August 9, 2010

P != NP ?

Stumbled upon this interesting article today on the famous P versus NP problem. Thought I should share it with my fellow CS enthusiasts.

For more, please visit here.

(Aug. 9) -- News that Hewlett-Packard employee Vinay Deolalikar may have solved one of computer science's most confounding mathematical problems -- known as P = NP or P versus NP -- is buzzing around the smart side of the Internet. The problem was formulated by Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin in 1971, according to the Clay Mathematics Institute, which has been offering a $1 million prize for its solution. Now, mathematicians are in the process of scrutinizing Deolalikar's proof, released on Friday, which says that P is not in fact equal to NP.

P versus NP
Roughly, the mathematical problem asks if "questions exist whose answer can be quickly checked, but which require an impossibly long time to solve by any direct procedure," according to the Clay Mathematics Institute. In other words, are there really problems whose solutions can be easily verified but not easily solved?

To illustrate the type of problem that could occur if this were true, Clay imagines a college housing scenario wherein 400 students have applied for rooms at a college that can only accommodate 100 of them. A selection of 100 students must be paired together in rooms, but the dean of students has a list of pairings of certain students who cannot room together. The total possible number of pairings is ridiculously large -- more than the total number of atoms in the universe -- but the solutions, i.e. the list of pairings finally provided to the dean, is easy to check for errors: If one of the dean's prohibited pairs is on the list, that's an error.

If P = NP, then problems that appear hard to solve (as the one above) actually have very easy solutions. Deolalikar says he has proven that P does not equal NP -- as many mathematicians have believed -- meaning problems do exist that are easier to solve than to verify.

P
In the equation P = NP, P stands for "polynomial time" and refers to a set of problems whose solutions are easy to find.

NP
NP, meanwhile, stands for "non-deterministic polynomial time" and refers to a set of problems whose solutions are hard to find, but easy to verify.

Algorithm
A set of instructions used to solve a problem. We use them without thinking about it in everyday life, such as when trying to figure out why a lamp doesn't turn on.

N
The number of elements involved in an algorithm. The time it takes to execute many common algorithms is proportional to N or N raised to a power. For example, to determine why a lamp is not working, we might consider three elements:
1. The lamp is not plugged in.
2. The light bulb is burnt out.
3. The lamp is broken.
With only three elements to consider, our algorithm will not take very long to complete. But, if we are trying to determine why our computer won't turn on, we are presented with more elements to consider: Is it plugged in? Is it frozen? Does it need to be rebooted? Does the operating software need to be re-installed? Is it broken? And so on.

Polynomial time
Refers to a "fast" or "efficient" amount of time needed to execute an algorithm, as in N or N raised to a power. Problems classified by "P" in P = NP are those whose solutions can be solved in polynomial time. Problems classified by "NP" can be verified in polynomial time but require exponential time (in other words, far, far more time) to solve.

NP-Complete
The set of NP problems (the majority of NP problems, in fact) that could be solved by adapting a single, easy solution, if an easy solution were possible.

Read more about P = NP on
MIT's website.
pnp12pt

Friday, July 30, 2010

Inception

... It's weird how I can tell if a movie is good just by looking at the trailer.

Inception was absolutely brilliant. Watched it the first day it was released, along with Despicable me and The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Reviews on those movies perhaps at a later time, or not at all.

From the director of the The Dark Knight, Nolan has crafted a movie that's truly beyond genius, and layered both narratively and thematically. Believe me, you have never seen anything like Inception, though many say it is similar to Matrix, it is not. You'll want to see it again and again.

"You’re waiting for a train; a train that will take you far away. You know where you hope this train will take you, but you can’t be sure. But it doesn’t matter – because we’ll be together."

DiCaprio was in my opinion the perfect lead for this movie, as he captured the role flawlessly. “If you’re going to perform inception, you need imagination.” Inception requires so much exposition that a lesser director would have forced theaters to distribute pamphlets to audience members in order to explain the complicated world he’s developed. No wonder it took him over a decade to write the script. Even I can't explain the plot in depth, as the movie required total concentration on what is happening (perhaps I shouldn't have gone out for snacks during the movie). Why is it so difficult to explain the plot in depth? First, I don’t want to spoil you. Secondly, the film layers dreams on top of dreams to the point where a unique keepsake called a “totem” is required in order to inform a character as to whether or not he or she is still dreaming. Then you have people in particular roles like “The Architect”, “The Forger”, and “The Chemist” in order to pull off the job. Furthermore, dreams have rules: dying in a dream forces the dreamer to wake up, delving too deeply into a mind can cause an eternal slumber called “Limbo”, using memories to construct dreams is dangerous because it can blur the line between dreams and reality. In addition, intruding in the dreams of another will cause the dreamer’s “projections” (human representations created by the dreamer) to attack the intruders like white blood cells going after an infection. And these explanations only represent a fraction of the terminology, rules, exceptions, or details that are necessary for creating the world of Inception. With set pieces so intricate, so jaw-dropping, and so breathtaking, you’ll already be swept up in the whirlwind.

There’s a lot to take in, but the imaginative and thoughtful delivery of exposition keeps the viewer riveted despite the amount of information required in order to understand the premise, setting, and plot. It’s not a confusing movie if you provide it with your full attention.

“Dreams feel real while we’re in them. It’s only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange.”

I'm more active in my dreams than in real life. It's a wonderful place to be. The idea here is - what if you can control your dreams? Other people's dreams? A concept so powerful, it'll be a shame if it doesn't get an Oscar.

Rating: 9/10




As a physics student, I am astonished by the set of laws inception breaks, but remains logical at the same time. I'm going to research more on the physics behind dreams. Should be an interesting topic.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

World Cup 2010

IN PAUL WE TRUST

Well, it's over - Spain deserved it.
South Africa was a great host, but it was a horrid world cup. Which proves my point why nothing compares to Champions League glory.
Let's just hope Brazil 2014 will do futbol justice.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

SPOJ - JEDNAKOST

Getting back to more programming after an inspirational summer camping trip. Saw one of my friends attempting this problem, thought I should give it a shot.

Recently solved problem #3752 - JEDNAKOS.

If you want to solve the problem yourself - stop reading now.

Solution - Recursion + Memoization

Easy problem really

1) Treat numbers starting with zero as special cases.

2) Let minplus[sum][pos] be an array that is the minimum number of pluses required to obtain the value 'sum' using the postfix starting at 'pos', then it's just simple recursion.

3) To avoid initialization, the array stores the number of pluses plus one.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

On the G20 protests

Quick post on something that should be expressed by a Torontonian.

For all these years that I have lived in Toronto, I have never been more disappointed in our people than I am now. I applaud the police for using force with tear gas and rubber bullets against those who have caused tax payers millions of dollars in damages.

It's quite a disgrace to think vandals such as the Black Bloc
would deface such a city for no particular reason at all.

Freedom of speech is something that should be treasured in this nation, peaceful protesters however got little media coverage while numerous news casts broadcasted the events surrounding these vandalisms, and therefore did not get their message's across the nation on issues that actually mattered.

People can be very stupid.

~Happy Canada Day

... Sigh

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Great People In History II - Leonardo Da Vinci

Leonardo Da Vinci, the great Italian renaissance man who changed our views of both art and science in such a way that modern civilizations still adore and admire his work. His accomplishments are unprecedented, a worldly known brilliant polymath whose unquenchable curiosity was equaled only by his powers of invention. There is no doubt that he is perhaps the greatest person in history, the only man to have attempted to know everything there is to know. His influences encompassed the world of arts, science & technology, and even invented new mechanisms that have revolutionized mankind. Astonishing feats of engineering were established 500 years ago, perhaps surpassing that of our modern era. He is a portrait of a genius of extraordinary diversity.

Leonardo was and is best known as an artist, the creator of such masterpieces as the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper, the most well known paintings of all time. His astonishing works of beauty still captivate and inspire people worldwide. His paintings became famous, and only rivaled by Michelangelo’s creation of Adam. When drawing his masterpiece, the Mona Lisa, his dedication and perseverance in achieving perfection caused him 10 years of his life, only to have painted the lips. In 1466, at the age of fourteen, Leonardo was apprenticed to the artist Andrea di Cione, known as Verrocchio. Other famous painters apprenticed there include Domenico Ghirlandaio, Perugino, Botticelli, and Lorenzo di Credi. Leonardo’s earliest known dated work while there is a drawing in pen and ink of the Arno Valley, drawn on August 5th, 1473. He was commissioned to paint the Virgin of the Rocks for the confraternity of the Immaculate Conception, and The Last Supper for the Monastery of Santa Maria delle Grazie. In January 1478, he received his first independent commission, to paint an altarpiece for the Chapel of St Bernard in the Palazzo Vecchio and The adoration of the Magi in March 1481 for the monks of San Donato a Scopeto. On Octover 18, 1503, he spent two years designing and painting a great mural of the Battle of Anghiari, with Michelangelo designing its companion piece, the Battle of Cascina. In both theory and practice, Leonardo’s artistic influence in the 16th and 17th century Europe, notably France, Spain, Flanders, and Germany was immense, as to have dedicated numerous museums and organizations in his honour. To this day only 15 of his paintings have survived, which have inspired and captivated millions world-wide.

Leonardo’s scientific contributions are brilliant and revolutionary for his time. His new views of the universe and nature are very accurate according to modern science, which is without a doubt a staggering feat for a man who had little to go by. His vision of the world is essentially logic rather than mystery. His personal notebook, which was discovered all over Europe in pieces, reveals correct interpretations of the human anatomy, explanations of physical concepts such as inertia, and sketches for various engineering marvels, such as conceptualizations of a helicopter, a tank, concentrated solar power, a calculator, the double hull and outlined a rudimentary theory of plate tectonics. Additionally, there are compositions for paintings, studies of details and drapery, studies of faces and emotions, of animals, babies, dissections, plant studies, rock formation, and even whirl pools. As a child, Leonardo received informal education in Latin, geometry and mathematics but did not show any particular signs of aptitude. Leonardo’s approach to science was an observational one: he tried to understand a phenomenon by describing and depicting it in utmost detail, and did not emphasize experiments or theoretical explanation. In the 1490’s, while studying mathematics under Luca Pacioli, he prepared a series of drawings of regular solids in skeletal form to be engraved as plates for Pacioli’s book De Divina Proportione, published in 1509. A recent and exhaustive analysis of Leonardo as a scientist by Frtjof Capra argues that Leonardo was a fundamentally different kind of scientist from Galileo, Newton, and other scientists who followed him, whom were more of specialized rather than diverse.

During his lifetime, Leonardo was highly valued as an engineer & a gifted inventor. He created mechanisms never thought of that had influenced people of average status to soldiers in the military. One of his famous inventions, still in use today, is an everyday tool – the scissor. He greatly advanced the state of knowledge in the fields of anatomy, civil engineering, optics, and hydrodynamics. After knowing Ludovico il Moro, Duke of Milan, he went on to produce many different projects for him, including the preparation of floats and pageants for special occasions, designs for a dome for Milan Cathedral, and a model for a huge equestrian monument. When Ludovico was overthrown, Leonardo fled Milan for Venice, where he was employed as a military architect and engineer, devising methods to defend the city from naval attack. He devised a system of moveable barricades to protect the city from attack. While in that position, Leonardo went on to create several maps, which were extremely rare at the time and it would have seemed like a new concept, even though only a few handful of people had seen and known how to use a map. When he returned to the Vatican in Rome, he made a mechanical lion which could walk forward, then open its chest to reveal a cluster of lilies, and also designed wings and shoes for walking on water. Da Vinci also invented musical instruments, such as a keyboard instrument with strings, which made sound via a wheel, horsehair strap, and a bow – a lot like a modern violin. His list of inventions rivals that of Thomas Edison, and continued to do so when building hydraulic pumps, reversible crank mechanisms, finned mortal shells, and even the steam cannon. Big leaps in thought were established during this ‘Da Vinci’ era.

Born in Vinci, Florence on April 15 1452, Leonardo di ser Piero Da Vinci, a man born with remarkable talents that some say transcends from God, displayed infinite grace in everything he did and cultivated his genius so brilliantly that all problems he studied were solved with ease. As Giorgio Vasari once stated, all his actions seem inspired and indeed everything he does clearly comes from God rather than from human skill.” As a painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer, his works and accomplishments speak for themselves, and through extensive research there is no doubt that he is perhaps the greatest man to have ever lived that has influenced people of such broad perspectives. His death on May 2nd, 1519 only marked the beginning of a new era that has forever changed mankind. In 2003, American author Dan Brown based a fiction novel entitled “The Da Vinci Code”, that sold 80 million copies as of 2009, and went on to be produced into a blockbuster movie.


World Cup Predictions

School is over and summer has begun - life is good.

Note: This post is mainly to organize my predictions for the World Cup.

Top 16

Group A
Uruguay & Mexico (Already confirmed - very disappointing for France)

Group B
Argentina & South Korea (Pretty obvious)

Group C
USA & England (Hopefully)

Group D
Germany & Ghana (Ghana is one African nation with a good chance of advancing)

Group E
Netherlands & Japan (Netherlands has a good shot to take it all)

Group F
Italy & Paraguay (I'm not very fond of Italy)

Group G
Brazil & Portugal (Tough group and a sad loss for Ivory Coast)

Group H
Spain & Chile (Poor performance from Spain thus far)

Therefore, the top 16 teams are:
  1. Argentina
  2. Brazil
  3. Chile
  4. England
  5. Germany
  6. Ghana
  7. Italy
  8. Japan
  9. Mexico
  10. Netherlands
  11. Paraguay
  12. Portugal
  13. South Korea
  14. Spain
  15. Uruguay
  16. USA
Quarter Finalists
  • Argentina (Eliminating Mexico)
  • Brazil
  • England (Capella will ruin England)
  • Germany
  • Japan
  • South Korea (Eliminating Uruguay)
  • Spain
  • Netherlands
Semi Finalists
  • Argentina
  • Brazil
  • Germany
  • Spain
Finalists
  • Argenina
  • Brazil
2010 World Cup Winner: Argentina, even though Maradona has no idea what he is doing.

You might have noticed I changed my finalists from Argentina & Spain to Argentina & Brazil. Simply put, after Spain's poor performance in several matches, I don't have much hope for them advancing through to finals, though they do have the potential. Brazil, however, has stepped up to the plate and has delivered quite a show for each match. I could be dead wrong, but for now lets enjoy the beautiful game.

Overall, this world cup hasn't been good, and i'm quite sad for the African nations.
Rating: 6.5/10

Let's just hope this isn't another World Cup like that of the 1990's in Italy.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Null

Just turned 17 recently and thought I should update my blog.
~ One year closer to the sweet release of death.

Currently, i'm very busy with school & soccer, so perhaps I won't be posting anything for a while in order to compensate for exam downtime.

The world cup has kicked off to a rather 'shaky' start, but exciting nonetheless.

I would usually convey a long discussion on my predictions and such, but i'll just get to the point as i'm going against a tight deadline.

Argentina & Spain.
I'll provide 'why' following exams ...

~Cheerios

Saturday, May 29, 2010

SPOJ - Flower Growing

Recently solved problem #4477 - FLOWGROW.

If you want to solve the problem yourself - stop reading now.

Solution - Combinatorics

The hard part is to calculate the number of possibilities to fill one row of flowers; to obtain the final answer, raise this number to the number of rows.

Let S(c,n) be the number of ways to fill n columns with exactly c colours, when only c colours are available:

S(1,n) = 1

S(2,n) = 2n-2xS(1,n)

S(3,n) = 3n-3xS(2,n)-3xS(1,n)

S(4,n) = 4n-4xS(3,n)-6xS(2,n)-4xS(1,n)

S(5,n) = 5n-5xS(4,n)-10xS(3,n)-10xS(2,n)-5xS(1,n)

S(6,n) = 6n-6xS(5,n)-15xS(4,n)-20xS(3,n)-15xS(2,n)-6xS(1,n)

S(7,n) = 7n-7xS(6,n)-21xS(5,n)-35xS(4,n)-35xS(3,n)-21xS(2,n)-7xS(1,n)

The factors being numbers from Pascal's triangle.

To calculate T(c,n), the number of ways to fill n columns with at least c colours from all 7 available colours:

T(7,n) = S(7,n)

T(6,n) = T(7,n)+7xS(6,n)

T(5,n) = T(6,n)+21xS(5,n)

T(4,n) = T(5,n)+35xS(4,n)

T(3,n) = T(4,n)+35xS(3,n)

T(2,n) = T(3,n)+21xS(2,n)

T(1,n) = T(2,n)+7xS(1,n)

The factors being numbers from the seventh row of Pascal's triangle.

When there are less than 7 columns, some of the calculations are skipped; the second part is only carried on as far as needed.

Faster optimizations are possible.
Note, "Time limit: 0.100s - 1.5s".

Woohoo! 60 problems!

Sunday, May 23, 2010

From Strings to Ekpyrosis

I have been recently reading Neil Turok & Paul Steinhardt's new book "The Endless Universe - Beyond the Big Bang" which I bought at the Quantum to Cosmos festival held at Waterloo a few months ago. This book provides a fascinating glimpse into the process of cosmological and theoretical physics research. Both authors recount their personal history, their introduction to cosmology, and how they became involved in research related to the Big Bang theory. Overall, a great read for those anxious of physics related advancements since the 2000s. Here is a snippet of one of my favourite chapters.

Let’s talk physics history. An ever-so exciting tale of young physicists that changed the mindset of physics for decades to come since the late 1960s.

“Make everything as simple as possible but not simpler.” – Albert Einstein.

Nowhere was the optimism of particle physicists in the early 1980s more evident than at the annual Workshop on Grand Unification, known by the acronym WOGU (pronounced “whoa-goo”). Each spring the leading physicists, their postdoctoral fellows, and their students would gather at a different site to discuss the latest experimental breakthroughs and theoretical advances. Every year, the exciting presentations at WOGU seemed to engender new confidence that quantum field theory and grand unification were on track … until the fourth WOGU, when a soft spoken young theorist politely suggested that a sharp turn in the current thinking might be needed.

The meeting took place in April 1983 at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, about fifty miles from Princeton, New Jersey, the home of Edward Witten. Only thirty-two years old at the time, he was already recognized as a theoretical physicist of great vision. For years, he had been a much admired pioneer in exploring the theoretical underpinnings of grand unification.

When Witten was invited by one of WOGU’s organizers to give a presentation, surprisingly, Witten was reluctant to accept. He explained that he was working on something new and was not sure the topic would be appropriate for a meeting on grand unified theories. That only made the prospect more intriguing, and so with persistence, Witten finally agreed to speak.

When the time came for Witten to talk, the last of the meeting, the auditorium was packed to standing room only. In his characteristic calm and gentle voice, Witten began by noting ways in which the current attempts at grand unification were failing. The most dramatic prediction, the instability of protons, had been tested, but no decays had been seen. The predictions of the masses of matter particles had also turned out wrong. Physicists could adjust the models to evade these problems, but only at the cost of adding ugly complications that made the whole framework implausible.

Witten then suggested that it might be time to consider a totally new approach. He proposed three guiding principles. First, the new approach should include gravity from the outset. Particle physicists were used to ignoring gravity because the gravitational attraction between elementary particles is normally negligible. However, when particles were smashed together at high energies, their collective mass rises in accordance with Einstein’s famous equations E = mc2, and the effects of gravity become stronger and stronger. At the very high energies where the strong and electroweak forces seem to merge into a single unified force, gravity is nearly as strong. For this reason, Witten argues, gravity has to be included in any theory of unification.

Dealing with gravity would be no easy task. Einstein had developed his theory of gravity in the early part of the twentieth century, at the same time that quantum theory was emerging. Despite all attempts, the two strands of physics had never been successfully joined. Einstein’s theory works tremendously well on large scales for describing gravity on the Earth, the solar system, and in the universe. But just like electromagnetism and light, gravity must be formulated in a way that is consistent with the laws of quantum physics in order to make sense on microscopic scales. For the other three forces, the quantum field approach had been spectacularly successful. But for gravity, every attempt to quantize Einstein’s theory had failed, leading to infinities, negative probabilities, or, at best, an infinite number of indeterminate parameters. A totally new approach was needed, one that would give a sensible answer.

Everyone in the audience knew about these difficulties in building a quantum theory of gravity. So all in attendance were naturally anxious to learn what Witten had in mind. Witten emphasized that he did not deserve credit for the idea he was going to suggest. Hard work had been done by a small, intrepid group of theorists working largely unnoticed and unappreciated. But Witten was now advocating, as his second principle, considering their daring proposal: a conceptual framework known as string theory.

Many in the auditorium had heard of string theory before, but most knew little about its history because it had had little impact on mainstream particle physics or cosmology up to that point. String theory had been developed in a rather roundabout way.

In 1968, Gabriele Veneziano at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) had proposed a formula for describing the scattering of nuclear particles interacting via the strong nuclear force. In 1970, Yoichiro Nambu at the University of Chicago, Holger Nielsen at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Leonard Susskind, then at Belfer Graduate College in Israel and now at Stanford University, showed that Veneziano’s formula could be interpreted as a model of vibrating one-dimensional strings. Unfortunately, it was soon discovered that the model had various pathologies, such as a tachyon, a physically impossible particle that moves faster than light. But this problem was cured as people realized that string theory was much more than a theory of nuclear particles. First, Joel Scherk at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris and John Schwarz at the California Institute of Technology showed that string theory included a particle behaving like a graviton, the troublesome quantum of Einstein’s theory of gravity. Then, by incorporating matter particles using a powerful new quantum symmetry called super-symmetry, Scherk with David Olive and other physicists managed to construct a completely consistent model with no tachyon.

In this way, the theory originally designed to describe the strong nuclear force was suddenly transformed into a unified theory with the potential to describe all the forces and particles in nature, including quantized gravity. But these developments went largely unnoticed. The 1970s were the heyday of quantum field theory, and string theory was seen as a speculative backwater. A few lonely theorists continued to struggle to develop the theory and iron out its remaining mathematical difficulties. This was a daunting and slow process, since few people were willing to risk working on the subject.

Witten’s talk went on to describe the advantages of reinterpreting elementary particles as tiny spinning bits of string. Just as Einstein pictures three-dimensional space as an elastic substance that can be stretched and distorted, you can think of string as a geometrical curve with no width that can bend and turn in all possible ways, like an infinitely thin strand of rubber. The string is perfectly elastic, so it can shrink to a point or be stretched out to an arbitrary length. If you stretch a piece of string out in a straight line, the free ends pull together with a fixed force called the string tension.

Some of the properties of string are actually very similar to those of cosmic strings. But whereas cosmic strings are really twisted-up configurations of fields with a minuscule but finite width, fundamental strings are ideal one-dimensional mathematical curves.

The string picture is beautiful in that one basic entity – string – can potentially account for the myriad of elementary particles observed in nature. Bits of string vibrate and spin, in certain specific quantized motions. Each new quantized state has a set of physical attributes: mass, charge, and spin. The little pieces of string describing photons, electrons, or gravitons are far too tiny to be seen, much less than a trillionth the diameter of a proton. To us, they appear like pointlike particles. But if string theory is correct, the masses, charges, ad spins of these little bits of string should precisely match the physical properties of all of the particles ever discovered.

Witten was especially attracted to this picture because it included gravitons as a hidden bonus, as Scherk and Schwarz had first shown. Bits of string with two free ends could account for all known types of matter particles. But the mathematics of string also allows for closed loops, like tiny elastic bands. When vibrating and spinning in just the right way, these loops have the same properties as gravitons, the quanta of the gravitational field. Even better, while calculations assuming pointlike particles and gravitons give nonsensical, infinite answers, calculations for stringy particles and loopy gravitons produce sensible, finite results. Although not designed for the purpose, string theory appears to automatically incorporate a theory of quantum gravity without infinities.

The reason string theory works where the particle description of quantum field theory fails can be explained by simple geometry. If two pointlike particles collide, their energy is concentrated at a point. Such pileups of energy cause a large gravitational field, curving space and drawing even more energy into the region. A runaway process ensues in which space curls up irretrievably into a tinier and tinier knot: a singularity. This catastrophe leads to mathematical infinities signaling a breakdown of the theory. On the other hand, if particles are tiny vibrating strings, their energy is spread out. If a collision causes a momentary pileup of energy, the string rapidly wriggles away and spreads out the energy, preventing the gravitational distortion from concentrating in one spot. Calculations of what happens when two bits of string collide, join, and break apart again give sensible, finite results. There are no singularities, and no infinities.

Witten’s third guiding principle dealt with the major hitch theorists had previously discovered about string theory. The equations describing the quantized vibrations of strings give sensible answers only if the number of spatial dimensions is nine. Nine!? To most physicists, this seemed absurd. Why study a theory that predicts six extra dimensions of space that have never been seen?

Witten addressed the problem of extra dimensions head-on: Learn to live with them, he said. Just accept the six extra dimensions of string theory; they are an essential aspect of the geometry of the universe. He reminded the audience that back in the 1920s the Swedish physicist Oskar Klein, building on the work of the German physicist Theodor Kaluza, had dreamed up a way of linking Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory with Einstein’s theory of gravity, in a model of the universe where one extra dimension of space was hidden from view.

To see how this works, consider the surface of a long soda straw. From a long distance away, it appears to be one-dimensional because you cannot detect its thickness. But up close, you can see the surface of the straw. To prove to yourself that the surface is two dimensional, slit the straw along its length and flatten it out. You will get a rectangle, a shape that is obviously two dimensional because it has both length and width.

Klein supposed that in addition to the three familiar dimensions of height, width, and length, there is a fourth dimension of space that is curled up in a circle so tiny that it cannot normally be seen. Kaluza and Klein’s remarkable discovery was that Einstein’s theory of gravity in four space dimensions, with one of the dimensions curled up as described, contained both Einstein’s theory of gravity in the remaining three extended dimensions and Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. Electric and magnetic fields arise, in this picture, from a “twisting” of the small extra dimension as you move along one of the large everyday dimensions.

According to Witten, theorists simply had to adapt Klein’s idea to the six extra spatial dimensions in string theory. There is no problem having strings wiggle in nine spatial dimensions, so long as six of the spatial dimensions are too small to be seen.

The extra dimensions would exist at every point in three-dimensional space. As an analogy, I’m going to use a rather famous one - consider a pile carpet made of woolen loops. To us, looking from above, it appears as a two-dimensional surface. But to an ant it seems like a huge forest of loops. At any point, the ant can choose to run along the direction of the floor, that is, along one of the two extended dimensions, or around one of the woolen loops that describe the curled-up dimension. In the same way, the extra dimensions in Kaluza and Klein’s approach are invisible, because their tiny size is too small to be seen. But in principle, with a very powerful microscope using very short wave-length radiation, one would be able, like the ants on the pile carpet, to see the convoluted structure of the extra dimensions on tiny length scales.

Witten framed his lecture carefully and peppered it with qualifications, but his message was clear. In a mere forty minutes, he made a compelling case that theories of grand unification were incomplete and that gravity, strings, and extra dimensions ought to be considered. Research on the fundamental laws of physics could be headed toward a revolution, he quietly suggested. You could have heard a pin drop in the auditorium as many physicists described. The audience was stunned, unsure how seriously to take Witten’s remarks.

Through the remainder of 1983, there were few signs that anything was going to change. During the Aspen summer workshop that year, for example, the talk was almost all about grand unification and field theory. But, sure enough, Witten’s lecture was the harbinger of a revolution that would soon sweep the world. The “first string revolution,” as it has been called, was ignited a year later at the 1984 Aspen workshop when Michael Green, then at Queen Mary College, London (now at Cambridge), and John Schwarz overcame a key mathematical roadblock in the construction of realistic string theories.

Until that point, there were many versions of string theory with different ways of folding the extra dimensions, but they all seemed to be fatally flawed. Witten had recently shown that many versions of string theory are unacceptable because they violate the conservation of energy through a quantum effect known as an anomaly. Green and Schwarz’s breakthrough was the identification of a special version of string theory that had realistic matter particles and no anomalies. Now, for the first time, one could point to a quantum theory that incorporated gravity and other forces and gave finite, sensible answers.

Working at Princeton, David Gross, one of the leading pioneers of unified quantum field theories (now director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara), along with Jeffrey Harvey and Emil Martinec (both now at the University of Chicago) and Ryan Rohm (now at Boston University) produced a compelling example known as heterotic string theory. The word heterotic, meaning hybrid, was added because it combined different versions of string theory to obtain one that has more of the ingredients needed to make a realistic theory of elementary particle physics. (A later, further improved form, heterotic M theory, was the stimulus for the Cyclic model of the universe.) These successes, and others that followed in rapid succession, captivated the international community of theoretical physicists. Almost overnight, it seemed, the focus of research shifted from particles to strings. And the merger of fundamental physics and cosmology that had seemed imminent in 1983 was put on hold.

On an unrelated note, i'm going to be posting less often as exam season is approaching. Oh the suspense ... Hooray for new banner & layout!

Saturday, May 22, 2010

SPOJ - Rectangles Counting

Recently solved problem #3890 - MRECTCNT.

If you want to solve the problem yourself - stop reading now.

Solution

Count the number of pairs
(a,b), a ≤ b and a + b - GCD(a,b) = squares.

Note: Monkey counting is fast enough.

My SPOJ account

Champions League Finals 2010 & Missing World Cup Stars

If you know me, you would know I am a major football fanatic - on & off the field. I also enjoy American football, however, it is football season now, and the 2010 FIFA world cup is just around the corner. Excited?

Today was the final match of the UEFA Champions League between Bayern Munich and Inter Milan. Though I am not a great fan of either clubs, I was rooting for Inter Milan mainly because it took them another 45 years to make the finals, which was quite inspirational.

The match was spectacular, and in the end Inter Milan won 2-0 as Jose Mourinho wrote his name into the history books as Diego Milito inspired Inter Milan to Champions League glory against Bayern Munich at Bernabeu stadium. The MVP of the game is no doubt Diego Milito, whom scored both goals, and with several other assists throughout the game. I believe the main reason why Inter Milan won was of their great defense system, rivaling that of Bayern Munich's strong offensive - the secret weapon being Arjen Robben.


Inter Milan celebrate their first European Cup victory since 1965

A classic rivalry and great match up. For more visit here.

World Cup 2010

If you are a fan of football, you would know by now that a number of great players will not be attending the 2010 games. Some of them being:
This is very disappointing, as my favourite player (Ronaldinho) will not be able to go even though he is at his prime.

I'm not sure how great this years world cup will be, but i'll remain optimistic nonetheless.

Therefore, I am now certain Argentina will be a top contender to win this years world cup. Why? Lionel Messi of course! I could be wrong though.

On an unrelated note, Nike has made yet another spectacular commercial for this special occasion. Enjoy:


I hope to post regular thoughts & opinions on the World Cup 2010 matches when it begins on June 11th. Stay tuned!

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Exploring The World

It's early in the morning and i'm currently working on an essay based upon the great renaissance man, Leonardo da Vinci. Being me however, I got sidetracked due to my imagination.

One of my life long dreams is to one day get the opportunity to travel around the world. And yes, so do 6 billion other people. But let's see how this is gonna go ...

Ever since I was a kid, my father told me stories of him going around the world and the experiences he had with different cultures. I was inspired and eager to one day do the same.

Now, when one usually says "I want to travel around the world", automatically, thoughts of iconic monuments, sculptures, landscapes, and cultural people come to mind. And sure, those are all great things to experience, but I want to go beyond ordinary travel experience and understand the differences and similarities between each unique lifestyle. The world is truly a utopia, and being encompassed in one region, one cannot appreciate & explore the beauty that is beyond ones 'borders'. I want to meet people of all cultures, explore foreign lands, and experience what my life would be like had I not been fortunate enough to be here. There is a whole other universe out there, and I want to observe & be awed by the nature surrounding it.

A few years later, when I was able to write and follow the globe, I began a list of all the places I would one day like to visit. I was a kid yearning for adventure. As the years passed, this list kept growing. This morning however, I don't know what came over me, but I decided to type it all out in a .txt file, and make a quick program to sort them. I believe I have a substantial knowledge of world geography & attractions, and so, here's a compiled a list (in alphabetical order) of places I would one day like to visit (excluding Canada - That's another list by itself):

  • Abu Simbel, Egypt
  • Agra, India
  • Ala Archa Gorge, Kyrgyzstan
  • Alhambra, California
  • Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Angor Wat, Cambodia
  • Antseranana, Madagascar
  • Area 51, Nevada
  • Athens, Greece
  • Atlanta, Georgia
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Auki, Solomon Islands
  • Austin, Texas
  • Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei
  • Bangkok, Thailand
  • Batik, Morocco
  • Beijing, China
  • Bengal Jungle, India
  • Berlin, Germany
  • Boulders Beach, South Africa
  • Brisbane, Australia
  • Brussels, Belgium
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Cairo, Egypt
  • Cambridge, Massachusetts
  • Cape Town, South Africa
  • Cape of Good Hope, South Africa
  • Chakachino, Zambia
  • Chicago, Illinois
  • Chichen Itza, Mexico
  • Christmas Island, Australia
  • Chuuk, Micronesia
  • Cologne, Germany
  • Dubai, United Arab Emirates
  • Dublin, Ireland
  • East Jerusalem, West Bank
  • Easter Islands, Chile
  • Ephesus, Turkey
  • Galapagos Islands, Ecuador
  • Giant's Causeway, Northern Ireland
  • Golden Temple, India
  • Grand Canyon, Arizona
  • Great Barrier Reef, Australia
  • Great Wall Of China, China
  • Gurgaon, India
  • Half Moon Caye, Belize
  • Haute-Piccardie, France
  • Hawaii, USA
  • Hong Kong, China
  • Impenetrable Forest, Uganda
  • Istanbul, Turkey
  • Kilimanjaro Summit, Tanzania
  • Kish Island, Iran
  • Kjeragbolten, Norway
  • Kuwait City, Kuwait
  • Lancelin, Australia
  • Las Vegas, California
  • Lemur Island, Madagascar
  • Lisbon, Portugal
  • Lisse, The Netherlands
  • London, England
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Luang Prabang, Laos
  • Machu Picchu, Peru
  • Madrid, Spain
  • Male, Maldives
  • Mexico City, Mexico
  • Miami, Florida
  • Mokolodi, Botswana
  • Monte Alban, Mexico
  • Montreal, Quebec
  • Monument Valley, Arizona
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Mulindi, Rwanda
  • Mumbai, India
  • Munich, Germany
  • Mutianyu, China
  • Neko Harbor, Antarctica
  • Nellis Airspace, Nevada
  • New York, New York
  • Panama Canal, Panama
  • Paris, France
  • Paro, Bhutan
  • Persepolis, Iran
  • Petra, Jordan
  • Poria, Papua New Guinea
  • Prague, Czech Republic
  • Pretoria, South Africa
  • Princeton, New Jersey
  • Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  • Rock Islands, Palau
  • Rome, Italy
  • Routeburn Valley, New Zealand
  • Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia
  • San Francisco, California
  • Sana'a, Yemen
  • Sao Paulo, Brazil
  • Seattle, Washington
  • Seljalandsfoss, Iceland
  • Seoul, South Korea
  • Shiraz, Iran
  • Siberia, Russia
  • Singapore, Singapore
  • Sossusvlei, Namibia
  • South Shetland Islands, England
  • Soweto, South Africa
  • Stockholm, Sweden
  • Stone Town, Zanzibar
  • Stonehenge, England
  • Suhbaatar, Mongolia
  • Sydney, Australia
  • Tagaytay, The Phillipines
  • Taipei, Taiwan
  • Tel Aviv, Israel
  • Teotihuacan, Mexico
  • The South Island, New Zealand
  • Thimphu, Bhutan
  • Tikal, Guatemala
  • Timbaktu, Mali
  • Tokyo, Japan
  • Tongatapu, Tonga
  • Tsavo, Kenya
  • Uluru, Australia
  • Vava'u, Tonga
  • Venice, Italy
  • Very Large Array, New Mexico
  • Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe
  • Wadi Rum, Jordan
  • Wainivilase, Fiji
  • Warsaw, Poland
  • Washington D.C, USA
  • Yangon, Myanmar
  • Yosemite National Park, Nevada

Note: I have already visited some of the places mentioned above. However, I'd like to visit them once more - Why not?

In 1971, a French ethnomusicologist recorded a traditional folk song in the Solomon Islands, near Papua New Guinea. The song, Rorogwela, was sung by a young women named Afunakwa. In 1992, Rorogwela was sampled by Deep Forest and used in a song called "Sweet Lullaby". The song became an international pop hit, selling over 3 million copies.

Enjoy this traditional folk song - it's really unique even if you don't necessarily understand it.



Though this dream is not a realistic option for me, I am somewhat of an optimistic environmentalist, and therefore, in the future I will do everything in my limited power to make this dream come true and explore all different kinds of environments and have a new grasp on how beautiful the world really is and why it should be preserved & protected.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Great People In History I - Julius Caesar

I have always had a great instilled pride for my knowledge of history, and how human civilizations have advanced in such great measures throughout its course in time. I am currently taking a course on Ancient History (up to 1600's) and I had written a report on a rather famous Roman Leader. I'm hoping once in a while I can add other posts on "Great People In History" that have forever printed themselves in historical texts. Let this be the first in the series to come.

Julius Caesar was the most famous Roman leader of all, conquered more land than any other Roman, and had a celebrated love affair with the Egyptian empress Cleopatra. He had no need of a kingly title. He had the power, he had the trappings, he had everything he essentially wanted - He didn't need a mere word in order to satisfy his vanity.

For 2000 years, the name "Caesar" has meant "Majesty in Power". His life inspired the rulers of empires to call themselves Caesar, Czar, and Kaiser. Ruthless ambition fueled his cline to power. Caesar stopped at nothing to achieve his goals. Conquest and genocide were his political tools. His reign led to the death of a republic and the birth of an empire.

As a young man Caesar learned about the legendary founding’s of Rome. He was instilled with a deep pride for its history. King's had been overthrown, a republic created, and the cities of Italy sucked into an ever growing territory.

Caesar was born into a prominent Roman family, and was only 15 years old when he accompanied his father to the forum, the seat of government in ancient Rome. It was an early taste of a life to come. As a member of the Roman ruling class, a political career was his destiny.

In the 200 years before his birth, Rome had conquered Greece, Spain, modern day France, and vast tracks of North Africa. It had made Rome very rich, but the speed of change made Rome politically unstable and treacherous.

Even as a teenager, his steely determination shown through. The impression we get is that he is a very independent minded individual. Caesar was always very matriculate about the way he appeared, very vain in fact, his already dressing in an unusual way, setting himself apart from his contemporaries.

When he was just 16 Caesar came to the attention of Sulla, then dictator of Rome - An enemy of Caesar's family. Caesar had made a political marriage. It was a union Sulla violently opposed and one that could have caused Caesar his life. It was remarkable that he stood up to Sulla, whom is an extremely ruthless individual. This shows Caesar's astonishing determination.

Soon after the death of his wife, Marius, Caesar went into exile. In Asia minor Caesar used his exile to make his name in battle. Caesar returned to Rome when Sulla died in 78 BC. Increasingly renowned for his skill and bravery in battle, he was decorated with a corona sivica. It was time for Caesar to pursue his political ambitions. He deliberately cultivated key allies in the violent world of Roman politics. Caesar became a lawyer, and over the next few years championed the rights of ordinary Roman's. He knew that the votes of the people would be the key of his future success. He had his sights set on the first step on the political power liner, pontifex maximus, high priest of Rome. Once he secured that position, he became one of the elite leaders of Rome. He had hit big time.

However, Caesar knew military victory's was what really counted in Roman politics. Caesar won a lucrative posting as governor of Spain, where he conquered and subdued the north west of the province.

Back in Rome, Caesar was now famous both as a soldier and a speaker, and was elected as one of the two heads of Roman government. He truly set the standard of what a leader really is. Although Caesar's consulship generated a lot of controversy, he was rewarded with a nine year campaign, during which Caesar would make his name as a brilliant general. Caesar the consul became Caesar the Conqueror.

"Veni, vidi, vici" - "I came, I saw, I conquered".

Caesar's ambition was boundless, not content to just one region, but he wanted more. Northern Italy, modern day Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, and even Britain were all in his sights.

Command of an army came naturally to Caesar. His physical presence during battle inspired total confidence, and it was said the sight of his red cloak was the equivalent of another legion. He was a superstar, respected and highly popularized.

Caesar knew he now had the power to seize Rome by force. It was exactly what his enemies had dreaded, and something punishable by death.

What he did next is why legends exist to this day.

He stormed through Italy initially with one single legion. It was them vs. the world. Victory was quick to come by.

In 44 BC he was elected dictator - For life. He was issued coins with his face on it, statues of him that were adored like those of the gods, and even reformed the calendar and named the month of July after himself, along with the Julian calendar. As they say, "Caesar dictates when the sun rises, and when it sets".

On the 15th of March, 44 BC, three days before he was due to leave for military campaign in Syria, Caesar attended the senate, having no idea he was walking into a murderous conspiracy.

As a conspirator moved in to talk to him, it was the signal for attack, and dagger after dagger plunged into Caesar's flesh. And even as he died, he put the Toga over his head, still concerned of his status to his people.

Gaius Julius Caesar transformed Rome from a growing republic into a mighty empire, which encompassed most of the known world. As Caesar had said, "I have lived long enough, whether measured in years, or in glory".

His life became a legend that has continued undiminished for more than 2000 years.